Better BTU is a small group of industry experts who monitor and evaluate trends in an effort to forward the development of the biomass industry. Made up primarily of engineers, project developers and businessmen, we use our connections with others in the business (consulting firms, lawyers, financiers, etc.) to bring objective and informative blog posts.

Friday, January 6, 2012

Definition Please - Part II

In our last blog entry
we discussed the need for standardized terminology in our emerging field. We
talked about how the term ‘gasification’ has been connected to images of
cleaner and greener forms of technology. Because of the broad definition of the
word, vendors using older technologies have sometimes slapped the term on its
technology in an attempt to connect to the positive images of gasification
without really cleaning up the process and reducing the emissions its putting
into the atmosphere.

Today we’d like to
expand on that topic by focusing on the other side. Just as some use the term
‘gasification’ to try to connect to its positive attributes, others (some
radical environmental groups) try to link gasification projects to incinerators
by reducing them both to the most basic definition and thereby, painting them
all with the same smoky-colored brush.

Although both
incineration and gasification can be lumped into the category of waste
management, the process objectives differ. Although exceptions can be found on
both sides, incineration is generally a process focused on destroying solid
waste and reducing the amount of trash filling up landfills. Additional air is
added to the burning process and extra steps are required post-combustion to
reduce the emissions being released into the air. Gasification, on the other
hand, converts solid fuel
(i.e. trash, etc.) into another form of energy, frequently termed as for “a
higher and better use.”

Incinerators have come a
long way since Manlove, Alliott & Co. Ltd. built the first (known as a
destructor) in 1874 in Nottingham, England. Nowadays environmental regulatory
agencies have limits on the emissions a plant can release and most incinerators
have instruments that clear the flue gas of gaseous and particulate pollutants.

While most incinerators
have cleaned up their act, the image remains tarnished. The average consumer
conjures up thoughts of billowing smokestacks upon hearing the word and some
have capitalized on those fearsome images to try to stop the implementation of
gasifiers as well.

One such example of an
organization incorrectly lumping all biomass plants together comes in the form
of a case study by the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) and
Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice entitled Incinerators in
Disguise. The second paragraph
of the paper states:

Today, many dozens of companies are promoting
technologies such as pyrolysis, gasification, plasma arc, and catalytic
cracking as a way to allegedly eliminate and “recycle” all types of waste into
energy. Many of these companies falsely and boldly claim their technology is
“pollution-free” and has “no emissions.” Aware of the public’s opposition to incineration, the
companies promoting these technologies all claim these are not incinerators but
are a “green” alternative to incinerators.

While there may be a rogue company working with
plasma arc technology out there that has claimed to be “pollution free”, we at
Better BTU find the vast majority of companies instead claim to “reduce
emissions” and many will even give a percentage number on the website. The
language of this paper seeks to lump all waste-to-energy processes together and
label them “hidden incinerators.”

The paper goes on to say:

Despite grandiose claims of industry, the facts prove
that these technologies are in reality “incinerators in disguise” that heats
the waste materials, and then burn the waste gases and emit dioxin and other
pollutants into the air.

What this paper fails to
explain is just because a process heats up the waste materials does not make it
incineration. Similarly, all waste
treatment processes emit a percentage of pollutants into the air – the issue is
how much and the reason gasification technology is on the rise is because it
produces less pollution than
incineration.

The reason the
“so-called conversion technologies,” as the paper refers to them, are
categorized that way is because they do just that - convert trash into a
gas that can be used for other things such as making electricity, chemicals, liquid fuel, etc.

Better BTU Take: At the end of the day, both sides are playing
fast and loose with language and they are able to do so because of the broad
definitions of terms like ‘gasification’ and ‘incineration’. How about we all
spend more time looking at the science and less on the politics?

About Me

this is a test this is only a test
this is a test this is only a test
this is a test this is only a test
this is a test this is only a test
this is a test this is only a test
this is a test this is only a test